alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR

WALK-IN COOLERS AND WALK-IN FREEZERS 

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW.

Washington, DC 20585 

Wednesday, May 19, 2010 

Room 8E-089 

Purpose

The Department of Energy (DOE) seeks comments, information, and data from interested parties 

on the preliminary analyses addressing energy conservation standards for walk-in coolers and 

walk-in freezers (WICF or walk-ins). 

Agenda

9:00 – 9:30 am Welcome, Introductions, Agenda Review, & Opening Statements 

 Doug Brookman 

 Interested parties make a brief summary of their comments.

 

9:30 – 9:45 am Rulemaking Overview 

Charles Llenza 

Summary of the statutory background, rulemaking process, and the issues 

on which DOE seeks input during today's public meeting. 

9:45 – 10:45 am Market and Technology Assessment, Screening Analysis, and 

Engineering Analysis 

Eric Fitz, Claire Gagne, and Rebecca Legett 

Summary presentation and discussion regarding the approach used and 

factors considered for the market and technology assessment, screening 

analysis, and engineering analysis.

10:45 – 11:00 am Break

11:00 – 11:45 am Markups for Equipment Price Determination and Energy Use 

Analysis 

Gopal Bandyopadhyay 

Summary presentation and discussion regarding the approach used and 

factors considered for the markups to determine equipment price analysis 

and energy use analysis. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 39
11:45 – 12:45 pm Shipments Analysis, Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis, 

and National Impact Analysis 

Gavin McCormick 

Summary presentation and discussion regarding the approach used and 

factors considered for the shipments analysis, life-cycle cost and payback 

period analysis, and national energy savings and net present value

analysis. 

12:45 – 1:45 pm Lunch

1:45 – 2:15 pm Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Rebecca Legett

Summary presentation and discussion regarding the approach to be used and 

factors to be considered for the manufacturer impact analysis.

2:15 – 2:45 pm NOPR Analyses: Utility Impact Analysis, Employment Impact 

Analysis, Environmental Assessment, and Regulatory Impact 

Analysis 

Rebecca Legett

Description of analyses DOE will conduct in the NOPR stage of the 

rulemaking. 

2:45 – 3:00 pm Break

3:00 – 4:00 pm Test Procedures

Rebecca Legett

A presentation summarizing the key test procedure issues will be provided 

which will then be open to participant’s discussion and feedback. 

4:00 – 4:30 pm Next Steps and Closing Remarks

Charles Llenza 

Participant’s to finalize discussions on issues and concluding remarks.

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 39
# • FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION COMPLIANCE WITH E.O. 12866 Section 6(a)(3)(E) of E. O. 12866 requ ires agencies to id entify for the public , in a comp lete, clear , an d si mple mann e r , tho se c h anges in a reg ul atory action made at th e s ugges tio n or recommendation of the Office of Information an d R eg ul atory Affa i rs ( OIRA ), O ffice of Management a nd B udget. 

### Title of Rulemaking: Update of Overflight Fee Rates 

### Regulatory Identification Number: RIN 2120-AK53



### __ X

. __ OIRA did not rev iew t he rul emak in g document.
OIRA rev iewe d the rulemaking document, but did not suggest or recomme nd a ny chan ges. OIRA reviewed the rul emak in g do c um e nt , and we h ave documented th e changes we made at OIRA's suggestion or recomm e ndation in an attachment to this sheet. 

### Signature of Analyst Date
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      3,512
<SECURITIES>                                1,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            8,294
<PP&E>                                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              8,294
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      18,620
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                    1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                8,294
<SALES>                                     7,200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           (6,387)
<CGS>                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           13,587
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,387)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             0
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,387)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0



</TABLE>
lmnl-ex419_17.htm



Exhibit 4.19

 

CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT, MARKED BY [***], HAS BEEN OMITTED BECAUSE LIMINAL BIOSCIENCES INC. HAS DETERMINED THE INFORMATION (I) IS NOT MATERIAL AND (II) WOULD LIKELY CAUSE COMPETITIVE HARM TO LIMINAL BIOSCIENCES INC. IF PUBLICLY DISCLOSED.

 

ProMetic BioSciences Inc. 

500, boul. Cartier Ouest

Bureau 150

Laval (Québec)

H7V 5B7

 

and 

ProMetic Life Sciences Inc.

531, boulevard des Prairies,

Édifice 15,

Laval (Québec)

H7V 1B7

 

RE: ENTENTE PBI-1101, PBI-1402

CESSION DE DROITS INTERVENUE EN LA VILLE DE MONTREAL, PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC, 

LE 17 OCTOBRE 2001 (the « Assignment Agreement »)

 

 

We, Innovon Pharmaceutiques Inc. (‘’Innovon’’) and Pierre Laurin, refer to the Assignment Agreement and hereby confirm that, as of this date: 

 


	
 
	
-
	
ProMetic BioSciences Inc. (‘’PBI’’) has fully complied with all of its obligations under the Assignment Agreement, including, without limitation, the obligation of section 5 to keep Innovon and Pierre Laurin regularly informed of its activities in relation to the development and commercialization of PBI-1101 and PBI-1402; and




 


	
 
	
-
	
Neither Pierre Laurin nor Innovon has sent a notice to PBI [***].




 

Furthermore, we also confirm that: 

 


	
 
	
-
	
In the Assignment Agreement, reference to PBI-1402 and analogues means and includes [***] covered in the issues and pending patent applications listed in Schedule A hereto;




 


	
 
	
-
	
The Assignment Agreement does not relate to the following family of compounds: [***];




 




	
 
	
-
	
The Assignment Agreement excludes [***]; and




 

 


	
 
	
-
	
Innovon and Pierre Laurin were duly notified by PBI, of PBI’s decision [***] in relation to [***] and agreed that PBI should [***] on the understanding that PBI would [***] upon Innovon’s written request.




 

SIGNED THIS _____23____________ OF _______May_____________ 2012

 

 

INNOVON PHARMACEUTIQUE INC. 

 

__/s/ Pierre Laurin___________________________/s/ Pierre Laurin_______________________

By:Pierre LaurinPIERRE LAURIN

Title:President

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO BY: 

 

 

PROMETIC BIOSCIENCES INC. 

 

 

___/s/ Patrick Sartore_______________

By: Patrick Sartore

Title: Senior Legal Counsel and Corporate

 

 

 

PROMETIC LIFE SCIENCES INC. 

 

 

___/s/ Kim Anthony________________

By: Kym Anthony, Chairman of the Board
§ 217.190 Specified activity and specified geographical region. ( a ) Regulations in this subpart apply only to incidental taking of marine mammals by the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) and those persons it authorizes or funds to conduct activities on its behalf in the areas outlined in paragraph (b) of this section and that occurs incidental to maintenance construction activities.
( b ) The taking of marine mammals by the Coast Guard may be authorized in a Letter of Authorization (LOA) only if it occurs within Gulf of Alaska waters in the vicinity of one of the following eight Coast Guard facilities: Kodiak, Sitka, Ketchikan, Valdez, Cordova, Juneau, Petersburg, and Seward.
Case 16-25698 Doc 1 Filed 08/10/16 Entered 08/10/16 15:17:40 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 9
Case 16-25698 Doc 1 Filed 08/10/16 Entered 08/10/16 15:17:40 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 9
Case 16-25698 Doc 1 Filed 08/10/16 Entered 08/10/16 15:17:40 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 9
Case 16-25698 Doc 1 Filed 08/10/16 Entered 08/10/16 15:17:40 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 9
Case 16-25698 Doc 1 Filed 08/10/16 Entered 08/10/16 15:17:40 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 9
Case 16-25698 Doc 1 Filed 08/10/16 Entered 08/10/16 15:17:40 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 9
Case 16-25698 Doc 1 Filed 08/10/16 Entered 08/10/16 15:17:40 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 9
Case 16-25698 Doc 1 Filed 08/10/16 Entered 08/10/16 15:17:40 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 9
Case 16-25698 Doc 1 Filed 08/10/16 Entered 08/10/16 15:17:40 Desc Main

 Document Page 9 of 9
Editorial Note on Part 622
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 622 appear at 79 FR 57837, Sept. 26, 2014 and at 81 FR 32253, May 23, 2016.

§ 622.485 Other harvest restrictions. ( a ) - ( b ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Spiny lobster* — ( 1 ) *Prohibition on harvest of egg-bearing spiny lobster.* Egg-bearing spiny lobster in the EEZ around St. Croix must be returned to the water unharmed. An egg-bearing spiny lobster may be retained in a spiny lobster trap, provided the trap is returned immediately to the water. An egg-bearing spiny lobster may not be stripped, scraped, shaved, clipped, or in any other manner molested, in order to remove the eggs.
( 2 ) *Landing spiny lobster intact.* ( i ) A spiny lobster in or from the EEZ around St. Croix must be maintained with head and carapace intact through offloading ashore.
( ii ) The operator of a vessel that fishes in the EEZ around St. Croix is responsible for ensuring that spiny lobster on that vessel are maintained intact through offloading ashore, as specified in this section.
( d ) [Reserved]
( e ) *Queen conch.* ( 1 ) A queen conch in or from the EEZ around St. Croix must be maintained with meat and shell intact through offloading ashore.
( 2 ) The operator of a vessel that fishes in the EEZ around St. Croix is responsible for ensuring that queen conch on that vessel are maintained intact through offloading ashore, as specified in this section.
Editorial Note on Part 660
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 660 appear at 67 FR 65906, Oct. 29, 2002, 88 FR 81358, Nov. 22, 2023.

§ 660.711 General catch restrictions. ( a ) *Incidental landings.* HMS caught by gear not authorized by this subpart may be landed in incidental amounts as follows: ( 1 ) Drift gillnet vessels with stretched mesh less than 14 inches may land up to 10 HMS per trip, except that no swordfish may be landed.
( 2 ) Bottom longline vessels may land up to 20 percent by weight of management unit sharks in landings of all species, or 3 individual sharks of the species in the management unit, whichever is greater.
( 3 ) Trawl and pot gear vessels may land up to 1 percent by weight of management unit sharks in a landing of all species or 2 individual sharks of the species in the management unit, whichever is greater.
( b ) *Marlin prohibition.* The sale of striped marlin by a vessel with a permit under this subpart is prohibited.
( c ) *Sea turtle handling and resuscitation.* All sea turtles taken incidentally in fishing operations by any HMS vessel other than vessels subject to § 660.712 must be handled in accordance with 50 CFR 223.206(d)(1).
[69 FR 18453, Apr. 7, 2004, as amended at 80 FR 46520, Aug. 5, 2015]
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Jupitermedia Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Christopher J. Baudouin, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Christopher J. Baudouin                         
|Christopher J. Baudouin                             
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|November 9, 2005                                    



This certification is made solely
for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 1350, subject to the knowledge standard therein, and not for any other purpose.
#### §§ 219.9-219.10 [Reserved]
DISMISS and Opinion Filed December 18, 2018 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-18-00902-CV

EDDIE FRANKUM AND HALO PROTECTION SERVICES, INC., Appellants V. VIVIAN SCHWARZ, Appellee

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-15096



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, J ustice Evans, and Justice Brown Opinion by Chief Justice Wright Before the Court is appellants’ unopposed motion to dismiss app eal. Appellants no longer
wish to prosecute this appeal as the parties have settled their differences. Accordingly, we grant
the motion and dismiss the appeal. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42(a)(1).

180902F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

EDDIE FRANKUM AND HALO PROTECTION SERVICES, INC., Appellants

No. 05-18-00902-CV V.

VIVIAN SCHWARZ, Appellee On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-15096. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Evans and Brown participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appe al is DISMISSED

. Subject to any agreement between the parties, it is ORDERED that appellee VIVIAN SCHWARZ recover her co sts of this appeal from appellants EDDIE FRANKUM AND HALO PROTECTION SERVICES, INC.

Judgment entered December 18, 2018.
Home
About
2020 Federal View Point Survey Results
	About DTIC
	Administrator
	Announcements
	Contact Us
	DTIC’s Past and Future
	DTIC Strategic Plan
	Employment
	Sitemap
Products & Services
DTIC’s Products & Services
	DTIC Registration Benefits
	DTIC Combatant Command (CCMD) Classified Reading Room
	Training
Submit Documents
Sign In
Operating Status
 Defense Technical Information Center
				*Search this site, DoD S&T Reports, and more..*

**Internet Explorer Users:** It is recommended that you use the Google Chrome or Microsoft Edge browser for an optimal experience with this application as Microsoft’s support for Internet Explorer is ending.
	DISMISS 04 -  Atmospheric Sciences
Return to Subject Categories
01
Atmospheric Physics
Physical and chemical properties of the atmosphere, exclusive of considerations of weather and climate; Aeronomy, aurorae and airglow; Atmospheric structure, energetic particles and solar-terrestrial relationships. For atmospheric propagation of radio waves, See 20/14, Radiofrequency Wave Propagation. For solar terrestrial magnetic interactions, See 08/04, Geomagnetism.02
Meteorology
Weather observations, prediction, and modification of the atmosphere; Climatology; Meteorological modelling.
 **DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER**
8725 John J. Kingman Road
Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060-6218
(800) 225-3842https://Discover.DTIC.mil
			AdministratorContact UsDoD Privacy ProgramEEOEmploymentFOIAInformation Analysis Centers
			Information QualityLegalMission StatementNo FEAR ActOpen GovernmentPlain Language
			Policy MemorandaPrivacy PolicySAPRStrategic PlanSubmit DocumentsUSA.govUSD(R&E)
			LinkedIn

NOTICE:  The appearance of hyperlinks does not constitute endorsement by the DTIC of non-U.S. Government sites or the information, products, or services contained therein.  Although the DTIC may or may not use these sites as additional distribution channels for Department of Defense information, it does not exercise editorial control over all of the information that you may find at these locations.  Such hyperlinks are provided consistent with the stated purpose of this website. The DTIC bears no responsibility for the accuracy, legality or content of the external website or for that of subsequent links. Contact the external website for answers to questions regarding its content. Please let us know about existing external links which you believe are inappropriate.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6398

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

PATRICK HARRINGTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-02-47; CA-03-50-2)

Submitted: May 13, 2004 Decided: May 20, 2004

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard George Brydges, BRYDGES, MAHAN, O’BRIEN & FRUCCI, Virginia

Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. Arenda L. Wright Allen, Assistant

United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Patrick Harrington seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

§ 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Harrington has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We deny Harrington’s motion for appointment of

counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 4.2


Schedule of additional 8% Convertible Subordinated Debentures Due December 1,
2000 executed by the Company which are substantially identical and which are not
being filed as exhibits pursuant to Instruction 2 to Item 601 of Regulation S-K:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                               Name of Debenture
NUMBER                   -----------------------------  ---------------------------     Principal Amount
                                    Holder                    Execution Date

<S>       <C>            <C>                                  <C>                            <C>      
          B-1            KA Investments LDC                   March 11, 1998                 $  50,000
          B-2            KA Investments LDC                   March 11, 1998                    50,000
          B-3            KA Investments LDC                   March 11, 1998                    50,000
          B-4            KA Investments LDC                   March 11, 1998                    50,000
          B-5            KA Investments LDC                   March 11, 1998                    50,000
          B-6            KA Investments LDC                   March 11, 1998                    50,000
          B-7            KA Investments LDC                   March 11, 1998                    50,000
          B-8            KA Investments LDC                   March 11, 1998                    50,000
          B-9            KA Investments LDC                   March 11, 1998                    50,000
         B-10            KA Investments LDC                   March 11, 1998                    50,000
          C-1            KA Investments LDC                    June 12, 1998                   500,000
          D-1            KA Investments LDC                   August 14, 1998                  500,000
          E-1            KA Investments LDC                  November 23, 1998                 500,000

</TABLE>

                                       43
```

                                                                  Exhibit 31

                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
                        THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Andrew J. Cederoth, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K,  and all reports on Form
      8-K  containing  distribution  or servicing  reports  filed in respect of
      periods  included in the year  covered by this annual  report of Navistar
      Financial Dealer Note Master Trust;

2.    Based on my  knowledge,  the  information  in these  reports,  taken as a
      whole,  does not contain any untrue  statement of a material fact or omit
      to state a material fact necessary to make the statements  made, in light
      of  the  circumstances   under  which  such  statements  were  made,  not
      misleading  as of the  last  day of the  period  covered  by this  annual
      report;

3.    Based  on  my  knowledge,   the  distribution  or  servicing  information
      required to be provided to the trustee by the Servicer  under the pooling
      and servicing  agreement,  for inclusion in these reports, is included in
      these reports;

4.    Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement included in
      the report and required to be delivered  to the trustee in accordance with
      the terms of the pooling and servicing  agreement, and except as disclosed
      in the reports, the  Servicer has  fulfilled  its  obligations  under that
      agreement; and

5.    The  reports  disclose  all  significant  deficiencies  relating  to  the
      Servicer's  compliance  with the minimum  servicing  standards based upon
      the  report  provided  by  an  independent   public   accountant,   after
      conducting a review in  compliance  with the Uniform  Single  Attestation
      Program for Mortgage  Bankers or similar  procedure,  as set forth in the
      Pooling and Servicing Agreement, that is included in these reports.

6.    In  giving  the  certifications   above,  I  have  reasonably  relied  on
      information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:  Master
      Trust Trustee.

 By:  /s/ANDREW J. CEDEROTH
         Andrew J. Cederoth
         Vice President and Treasurer

         December 18, 2003
```
Case 16-22700 Doc 1 Filed 07/14/16 Entered 07/14/16 21:11:52 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 7
Case 16-22700 Doc 1 Filed 07/14/16 Entered 07/14/16 21:11:52 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 7
Case 16-22700 Doc 1 Filed 07/14/16 Entered 07/14/16 21:11:52 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 7
Case 16-22700 Doc 1 Filed 07/14/16 Entered 07/14/16 21:11:52 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 7
Case 16-22700 Doc 1 Filed 07/14/16 Entered 07/14/16 21:11:52 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 7
Case 16-22700 Doc 1 Filed 07/14/16 Entered 07/14/16 21:11:52 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 7
Case 16-22700 Doc 1 Filed 07/14/16 Entered 07/14/16 21:11:52 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 7